ey88
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 27,262
- Reputation
- 59,483
Morality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Not really
Why?Dangerous way of thinking
Life without morales is a very reckless life, u need to teach ur future kids morals or they’ll be rogueWhy?
EudemonismMorality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
You need to teach them man made rules so they can determine what is actually best for themLife without morales is a very reckless life, u need to teach ur future kids morals or they’ll be rogue
I agreeMorality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
Do you believe in Karma?Morality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
NoDo you believe in Karma?
Everyone has their own rules and sense of empathyEveryone has their own sets of morals. Everyone religious and non religious alike
Exactly, they just don’t realize that they are only doing good things for others because it benefits themThis is how everyone operates
Being selfless doesn't exist unless you're severely mentally ill
This is utilitarianism, and one of the problems with the general idea of this ethical system -it acts in favor of the greatest benefit for society- apart from the idea of calculability of what is benefit, is that all acts have negative externalities, and the former are always incalculable. In other words, you can help a person in a street situation with some coins, but maybe that person can be a serial murderer, who, with the coins you gave, buys a knife and kills a person, in that sense your act did not generate a benefit to society, in fact it generated more pain than anything else, the pain of the families, the pain that the murdered person lived, etc.Morality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
Utilitarianism is the best for everyone isn’t it?This is utilitarianism, and one of the problems with the general idea of this ethical system -it acts in favor of the greatest benefit for society- apart from the idea of calculability of what is benefit, is that all acts have negative externalities, and the former are always incalculable. In other words, you can help a person in a street situation with some coins, but maybe that person can be a serial murderer, who, with the coins you gave, buys a knife and kills a person, in that sense your act did not generate a benefit to society, in fact it generated more pain than anything else, the pain of the families, the pain that the murdered person lived, etc.
In general, Ethics studies these moral systems, and the curious thing is that the system of the greatest benefit for the majority is also morality.
We live in one right nowI mean would you want to live in a world where everyone was selfishness and only acted for themselves ???
Said the guy who wants who have swinger sex lmaoLife without morales is a very reckless life, u need to teach ur future kids morals or they’ll be rogue
This is not eudemonism this is egoismEudemonism
It benefits you if you can get help from your community and stuff like that so I think his point still standsthis view of morality is flawed because it ignores the reality that humans live in communities where actions impact others. If everyone acted purely for self-benefit then trust, cooperation, and social harmony would break down, making it harder for anyone to thrive (even yourself) Morality exists as a framework to balance individual needs with the wellbeing of others. True “good” isn’t just about personal gain
True good = a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit and live well.
I mean would you want to live in a world where everyone was selfishness and only acted for themselves ???
and don't say we don't need eachother because we 100% do!! we are social creatures
Basically if what you get out of it outweighs your negatives feelings of empathy it is moralkilling someone who did nothing to me is immortal however if it can benifit me then i can look past it
How killing someone can benefit you, in what case is necessarykilling someone who did nothing to me is immortal however if it can benifit me then i can look past it
no it is still immoralBasically if what you get out of it outweighs your negatives feelings of empathy it is moral
To stealHow killing someone can benefit you, in what case is necessary
Why?no it is still immoral
im at a job and the person who's about to get a big promotion that would've went to me, stuff like thatHow killing someone can benefit you, in what case is necessary
yep, and it's literally hellWe live in one right now
cause it would go against my moralsWhy?
I think the name for that is egoismBasically if what you get out of it outweighs your negatives feelings of empathy it is moral
Morals don’t existcause it would go against my morals
Egoism is the le funny. Morality is a spook.This is not eudemonism this is egoism
Hm. Idk. It may be good for me to kill someone if they inconvenience me, but it doesn't make it morally acceptable. But I guess that is why laws exist.Morality doesn’t exist
Whatever benefits you most is “good”
Utilitarianism is the best for everyone isn’t it?
I’m saying whatever is best for yourself is good
This theory can be taken to the individual point, since Mill, the creator of utilitarianism, wrote this theory on the basis of consequentialism ( that is, one should act according to those actions that produce less negative and more positive consequences). The version, if it can be called that, of individual utilitarianism is what is called ethical egoism, which is based directly on the idea of acting for individual benefit. The problem is the same as I mentioned before, it is not possible to measure the benefit, because every act can have unexpected negative consequences, one can be short term and say that if you act based on the greatest benefit in the present, but this idea crumbles after the sum of acts that converge in the possibility of acts that lead to discomfort (for example, consuming alcohol because in the short term it gives you pleasure, but if you add up all the times you have consumed alcohol, you become stupid).
It isnah, it's not that simple. even bentham knew this
Is not necessary to kill someone if you wanna steal, if the other person defends himself and you only want to steal you might knock out him not necessary to kill. If you kill you're doing it for the pleasure of killing if the other person you're dealing with is not agaisnt you.To steal
not true at allMorals don’t exist
You just know that it won’t be good for your life
Prove me wrongnot true at all
how would i prove you wrong? maybe you just have no moralsProve me wrong
dude, that's morality, (“a person's standards of right and wrong”).Morals don’t exist
You just know that it won’t be good for your life